Excommunicated: Carson And Marisa Calderwood

[Storm Rider]

 

 

I'd recommend listening to the Mormon Stories interview that released yesterday with the Calderwoods about their excommunication. I think it would be a massive stretch to call them "dim witted".

http://mormonstories.org/marisa-and-carson-calderwood-discuss-their-excommunication/

In a church that so values proseletyzing for the gospel, it's not difficult to understand why people would choose to share things they find to be valuable for others. If they perceive harm being do, why wouldn't they speak out? There are others out there who feel threatened by the church because of their beliefs, especially after a double excommunication like this. Sharing their story is helpful for many. That's why they share and that's why I'm glad they did.

Also, I think you misunderstand the Calderwoods. I don't see them as trying to "lead" anyone anywhere. But rather they are a resource for those who are struggling to feel like they are not crazy and not alone. I'd also point out that "apostacy" from the church is not the same thing as "Leading people away from Christ." I'm sure many people feel that Christ and the CoJCoLDS is exactly the same thing but I don't. One can lose confidence in the church yet still maintain faith in their relation ship with God/Christ.

 

 

Okay, let's go back to reality rather than a recreation to meet your objectives and grandstanding.  What I actually said was, "This is the issue for me.  In this day and age of some people feeling as if they need to share everything with the entire world I can see how some, rather dim-witted individuals, might share their doubts, their misgivings, and their lack of faith with the world at large."  Do you see the difference between stating that SOME PEOPLE, not this couple in particular, but SOME people.  Put another way, if the shoe fits wear it, but if it doesn't WHY ARE YOU BOTHERED ABOUT THE ALLEGATION?  What is dim-witted is that others actually applauded your misunderstanding of what I stated.  It is as if there is high degree of group think going on and it does not matter what reality is, but how anyone that dares to conflict with your agenda is obviously, massively stretching.  This is just strange.

 

I have never felt the need to proselytize to those I don't know.  If I cannot do it face-to-face, then I find the experience less than satisfying.  I do understand that how some might interpret an interaction on the internet as going public, but I find a distinct difference those who interact and those who write blindly to the world at large.  One is interacting with a specific individual while another is taking out the bullhorn and communicating blindly to the world and/or to all those who will listen to them.  One is what the Church teaches and the other is something else entirely.  For the record, I am not glad they shared or anyone other person that feels compelled to grandstand.  

 

JD was a resource; KK was a resource; for that matter and using your standard, I suppose one could say that Satan is just a resource.  Who is not a resource given your standard?  I qualify resources to determine whether that actually are valid for references.  How does this couple, who I have never met, become qualified to lead anyone or to be a resource.  If I lived in their ward, if I worked with them, if there was a relationship, I suppose I determine to what degree they are worth listening to, but they are strangers to me.  I don't know their story, as I have already stated, and I suspect the majority of people on this site are in the same position as me.  Qualify those you put on a pedestal and empower to guide you.  Without any form of qualification process you are just allowing yourself to be blown about by any wind of doctrine being offered. 

[smac97]

It’s easy to say that they should be considered apostate when you just look at those quotes alone.

"They should be considered apostate" because they have been excommunicated by those in authority, and because their published statements appear to corroborate that decision.

If the Calderwoods are not in a state of apostasy, if they have been wrongly excommunicated (it's happened before - the situations pertaining to Helmuth Hübener and Avraham Gileadi come to mind), then they can seek an appeal. And if the First Presidency upholds the local leaders' decision, and if they are wrong to do so, then God will sort it out.

But meanwhile, we work with the information at hand. That information is that A) the Calderwoods have been excommunicated for apostasy, and B) the Calderwoods have made public statements, which they have yet to retract, which appear to substantiate the charge leveled against them. There's not much more for us to do, really, except to hope that the Calderwoods return to the Church. I hoe they do.

It’s a much more complex story if you take the time to listen, sympathize and consider the situation.

Having listened to conclusions published by the Calderwoods that that "the LDS church is not God’s one true church as it states," that Carson has "became thoroughly convinced that the church isn’t true," that the Church " is just plain wrong on so many issues," that the LDS Church " is not, and never has been, God’s one and only true church on the earth," that it teaches "too much philosophy of men to truly be from God," that church leaders have "twisted, covered up, whitewashed, rationalized and straight-up lied about (the truth)," and that their (the Calderwoods') "loyalty is not to the church but truth and righteousness," is there really a need to delve into every jot and tittle of the Calderwoods writings regarding how they reached these conclusions?

Wouldn't we just be better with being aware that we have lost a family, and that the most we can really do at this point is pray that they have a change of heart, revive their testimonies of the Restored Gospel and seek re-entry into the Church?

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

I'm challenging you to show, with specific substantiation, how Smac has taken the individuals in question out of context. Your continued failure to do so tempts me to conclude that you are unable to do it.

I think that's been made amply clear. I'm okay with moving on without further pressing the point.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Michael13365]

This is certainly in keeping with the example of Joseph Smith. Starting with various witnesses to the gold plates, he excommunicated just about anybody whom he suspected of disloyalty. And amazingly, many of those he kicked out still thought he was a prophet. The more things change...

[Scott Lloyd]

I think that's been made amply clear. I'm okay with moving on without further pressing the point.

Thanks,

-Smac

I'll join you in that conclusion and give any further tap dancing or skirting of the issue by hft the credence it deserves.

[smac97]

Great, you still have not provided evidence that that the "context" is going to change the meaning of what was quoted. Can you do that?

I propose that we move beyond the vacuous accusation leveled against me. It's not an argument that merits further exploration.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Scott Lloyd]

This is certainly in keeping with the example of Joseph Smith. Starting with various witnesses to the gold plates, he excommunicated just about anybody whom he suspected of disloyalty. And amazingly, many of those he kicked out still thought he was a prophet. The more things change...

What a load of crap!

[Scott Lloyd]

I propose that we move beyond the vacuous accusation leveled against me. It's not an argument that merits further exploration.

Thanks,

-Smac

I am content for the record to clearly reflect that the challenge has been put to him several times, by me and others, and he has utterly failed to respond.

 

Let #358 be remembered as the post where that declaration was made.

Edited May 26, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

I agree that it is not an automatic indication of someone being taken out of context.  But I'm sure you're familiar of instances where it is.

My phrase "not an automatic indication" should reflect clearly enough that I acknowledge there are such instances.

[hope_for_things]

You don't seem to get the message that I'm calling you on your accusation. Your saying someone has been taken out of context does not make it so. I'm challenging you to show, with specific substantiation, how Smac has taken the individuals in question out of context. Your continued failure to do so tempts me to conclude that you are unable to do it.

I think we are talking on two different wavelengths.  You say you understand how things can be taken out of context, yet you don’t want to acknowledge that this happened in this scenario.  I believe those statements all together don’t characterize the Calderwood’s in a fair light.  My Brigham Young example is probably the best example in Mormon history I can think of where this has been done to try and simplify someone’s positions and the complexity of their character.

 

This is exactly what was done with the Calderwood’s in my opinion.

 

I could attempt to explain why any one of those quotes that SMAC made were out of context individually, but that would detract from my larger point.  It’s the combined over simplification of their position that is the problem, and that point would get lost in the narrow discussion about each quote's techinical accuracy, which I've already acknowledged may technically be correct.  

 

What you and others on this thread have demonstrated is a lack of desire to understand the Calderwood’s.  It’s unfortunate that you don’t want to take the time to truly understand their plight and have a meaningful discussion about whether the charge of apostasy was either clearly apostate by the current definition, or even fair.  

Edited May 26, 2015 by hope_for_things

[HappyJackWagon]

 

Okay, let's go back to reality rather than a recreation to meet your objectives and grandstanding.  What I actually said was, "This is the issue for me.  In this day and age of some people feeling as if they need to share everything with the entire world I can see how some, rather dim-witted individuals, might share their doubts, their misgivings, and their lack of faith with the world at large."  Do you see the difference between stating that SOME PEOPLE, not this couple in particular, but SOME people.  Put another way, if the shoe fits wear it, but if it doesn't WHY ARE YOU BOTHERED ABOUT THE ALLEGATION?  What is dim-witted is that others actually applauded your misunderstanding of what I stated.  It is as if there is high degree of group think going on and it does not matter what reality is, but how anyone that dares to conflict with your agenda is obviously, massively stretching.  This is just strange.

 

I have never felt the need to proselytize to those I don't know.  If I cannot do it face-to-face, then I find the experience less than satisfying.  I do understand that how some might interpret an interaction on the internet as going public, but I find a distinct difference those who interact and those who write blindly to the world at large.  One is interacting with a specific individual while another is taking out the bullhorn and communicating blindly to the world and/or to all those who will listen to them.  One is what the Church teaches and the other is something else entirely.  For the record, I am not glad they shared or anyone other person that feels compelled to grandstand.  

 

JD was a resource; KK was a resource; for that matter and using your standard, I suppose one could say that Satan is just a resource.  Who is not a resource given your standard?  I qualify resources to determine whether that actually are valid for references.  How does this couple, who I have never met, become qualified to lead anyone or to be a resource.  If I lived in their ward, if I worked with them, if there was a relationship, I suppose I determine to what degree they are worth listening to, but they are strangers to me.  I don't know their story, as I have already stated, and I suspect the majority of people on this site are in the same position as me.  Qualify those you put on a pedestal and empower to guide you.  Without any form of qualification process you are just allowing yourself to be blown about by any wind of doctrine being offered. 

 

You seem to have taken offense where none was intended and in turn decided to give offence by accusing me of grandstanding and calling others involved in group think and "dim witted" for agreeing with me. The Calderwoods don't lead me. I don't know them personally, but I have taken the time to get to know their story before commenting about them. Perhaps you should do the same.

Edited May 26, 2015 by HappyJackWagon

[smac97]

What you and others on this thread have demonstrated is a lack of desire to understand the Calderwood’s.

It's not that. Life is short, free time is finite. I am not interested in discussing the particulars the Calderwoods' excommunication. They have been excommunicated by those in authority, and the Calderwoods' published statements appear to warrant that decision. It's not really our province to second guess the decision made by Calderwoods' local leaders, especially when there is no particular justification for doing so. At this point I think the only thing left for Latter-day Saints to do is to pray for the Calderwoods and hope that they return to the Church.

 

It’s unfortunate that you don’t want to take the time to truly understand their plight and have a meaningful discussion about whether the charge of apostasy was either clearly apostate by the current definition, or even fair.

I am not interested in parsing out the particulars of the Calderwoods' apostasy. I don't know them. They don't know me. I have no stewardship over them. I also have no stewardship over their leaders, and therefore no reason to investigate the propriety of their exercise of their priesthood responsibilities vis-à-vis the Calderwoods.

I will, however, pray for the Calderwoods and hope that they have a change of heart or, short of that, that they have a good life.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited May 26, 2015 by smac97

[Damien the Leper]

instead of addressing any of my points, you proceed to ignore them and restate your original argument. Not really that impressed.

how can any private organization exercising their right to associate by Stalinist? By definition only a government entity can be Stalinist.

Not trying to impress. Your concerns warranted reiteration of my point. You weren't going anywhere with them.

I took a 5 semester hour course on the overlap of theory, rhetoric and consequence of religion and politics. After that class, it would be naive to suggest anything less than a 43% integration between the two in modern societies.

[Scott Lloyd]

I think we are talking on two different wavelengths.  You say you understand how things can be taken out of context, yet you don’t want to acknowledge that this happened in this scenario. 

I've invited you to show how that has happened in this scenario, yet you have failed to do so and don't seem at all disposed to even try. What else am I to conclude other than that you can't?

 

I believe those statements all together don’t characterize the Calderwood’s in a fair light.

 

Fine. Show us how it doesn't.

 

 

I could attempt to explain why any one of those quotes that SMAC made were out of context individually, but that would detract from my larger point.  It’s the combined over simplification of their position that is the problem, and that point would get lost in the narrow discussion about each quote's techinical accuracy, which I've already acknowledged may technically be correct.

 

You can't credibly make your "larger point" without showing how the quotes were taken out of context. Yet you won't do that. Again, I think it's pretty clear at this point that you can't.

 

What you and others on this thread have demonstrated is a lack of desire to understand the Calderwood’s.  It’s unfortunate that you don’t want to take the time to truly understand their plight and have a meaningful discussion about whether the charge of apostasy was either clearly apostate by the current definition, or even fair.

To me, it seems clear that their quoted public statements, brazen as they are, are an accurate reflection of their attitude. If you don't think so, it is up to you to show why.

 

[Damien the Leper]

That's a pretty big if to be tossing about accusations of Stalinism. People are trying to make judgments with only half of the story. for all we know the were ex-d for something completely unrelated.

I was speaking in general then addressed the Calderwood's.

[Scott Lloyd]

It's not that. Life is short, free time is finite. I am not interested in discussing the particulars the Calderwoods' excommunication. They have been excommunicated by those in authority, and the Calderwoods' published statements appear to warrant that decision. It's not really our province to second guess the decision made by Calderwoods' local leaders, especially when there is no particular justification for doing so. At this point I think the only thing left for Latter-day Saints to do is to pray for the Calderwoods and hope that they return to the Church.

 

I am not interested in parsing out the particulars of the Calderwoods' apostasy. I don't know them. They don't know me. I have no stewardship over them. I also have no stewardship over their leaders, and therefore no reason to investigate the propriety of their exercise of their priesthood responsibilities vis-à-vis the Calderwoods.

I will, however, pray for the Calderwoods and hope that they have a change of heart or, short of that, that they have a good life.

Thanks,

-Smac

I too hope they have a change of heart. As far as their having "a good life," the best I could hope for them is that they have a life-changing experience similar to that of Alma the younger, if that's what it takes.

 

In short, the best that can be hoped for them is that they repent in humility and return to the fold of God.

Edited May 26, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Damien the Leper]

Use of the term "Stalinist" is probably an unfortunate choice of terms insomuch as it is clearly hyperbolic, and certainly rather inflammatory.  That being said, rather than getting excited about the word, perhaps you could see the point of the criticism; namely - the mere threat of excommunication for verbalizing doubts (which is at least the perception being created with this event) has a chilling effect on those trying to grapple with their doubts and still maintain important interpersonal relationships which are intertwined with the Church and its culture.  In short, people genuinely struggling with doubt will likely be driven further into hiding after seeing the Calderwoods' excommunication.

For ttribe and avatar, I retract my "Stalinist" comparison.

[hope_for_things]

I am not interested in parsing out the particulars of the Calderwoods' apostasy. I don't know them. They don't know me. I have no stewardship over them. I also have no stewardship over their leaders, and therefore no reason to investigate the propriety of their exercise of their priesthood responsibilities vis-à-vis the Calderwoods.

I will, however, pray for the Calderwoods and hope that they have a change of heart or, short of that, that they have a good life.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Fair enough.  I still like Rockpond’s original reason for opening the thread and think a discussion about what constitutes apostasy is an important one going forward in the church.   We can agree to disagree on whether the Calderwood’s actions qualified them for the definition of apostate activity or not.  

[hope_for_things]

To me, it seems clear that their quoted public statements, brazen as they are, are an accurate reflection of their attitude. If you don't think so, it is up to you to show why.

 

If you want to think that those statements are an accurate reflection of their attitude that is your business.  I can only tell you that I believe you are wrong, and I leave it up to you to do the research necessary to see otherwise.  Enough links to their entire statements and interviews with them have been given, the information is out there for all to search and make judgments from.  

[smac97]

Fair enough.  I still like Rockpond’s original reason for opening the thread and think a discussion about what constitutes apostasy is an important one going forward in the church.   We can agree to disagree on whether the Calderwood’s actions qualified them for the definition of apostate activity or not.

In the OP Rockpond made the following statement: "It would seem with the Calderwoods, the Church (or at least its local leaders) are adding a requirement that expressing doubt among friends/social media or being critical of leaders is now a fifth definition of apostasy."

I think this is a mischaracterization of the situation in two material respects. First, it appears that the Calderwoods did a lot more that merely "express doubt among friends/social media." Second, I do not accept that there is "now a fifth definition of apostasy." The current definitions appear to be sufficient to account for statements such as those published by the Calderwoods.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Scott Lloyd]

If you want to think that those statements are an accurate reflection of their attitude that is your business.  I can only tell you that I believe you are wrong, and I leave it up to you to do the research necessary to see otherwise.  Enough links to their entire statements and interviews with them have been given, the information is out there for all to search and make judgments from.  

Indeed they have, and the long and the short of it is that your accusation that the statements were taken out of context is not self-evident and it stands unsubstantiated and thus lacks credibility -- a fatal flaw, as I see it.

Edited May 26, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[hope_for_things]

In the OP Rockpond made the following statement: "It would seem with the Calderwoods, the Church (or at least its local leaders) are adding a requirement that expressing doubt among friends/social media or being critical of leaders is now a fifth definition of apostasy."

I think this is a mischaracterization of the situation in two material respects. First, it appears that the Calderwoods did a lot more that merely "express doubt among friends/social media." Second, I do not accept that there is "now a fifth definition of apostasy." The current definitions appear to be sufficient to account for statements such as those published by the Calderwoods.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

As used here, apostasy refers to members who:

1. Repeatedly act in clear, open, and deliberate public opposition to the Church or its leaders.

2. Persist in teaching as Church doctrine information that is not Church doctrine after they have been corrected by their bishop or a higher authority.

3. Continue to follow the teachings of apostate sects (such as those that advocate plural marriage) after being corrected by their bishop or a higher authority.

4. Formally join another church and advocate its teachings.

 

I tend to agree with you about the 5^th definition, I’m not sure that it’s needed either.  I do think of the 4 definitions that the only applicable one is item #1.   I do think that it’s unclear what actions constitute acting in public opposition to the church.  Would a facebook post or internet chat forums like this one fall under that definition?  Especially considering some of the recent statements around supporting same sex marriage that Elder Christopherson made, it would seem that public opposition to the church by way of internet communities and what crosses that line, is quite gray and difficult to define right now.  

[hope_for_things]

Indeed they have, and the long and the short of it is that your accusation that the statements were taken out of context stands unsubstantiated and thus lacks credibility -- a fatal flaw, as I see it.

I’ll concede that I haven’t proven the point to your satisfaction, and leave it at that.  

[Scott Lloyd]

I’ll concede that I haven’t proven the point to your satisfaction, and leave it at that.  

To my satisfaction? You haven't proven it at all. You haven't even given it substance. Your accusation is just as Smac characterized it: vacuous.

[Damien the Leper]

What a load of crap!

Agreed. I thought the comment rather myopic and reductive.